The Inspiration of the Bible

http://www.ianpaisley.org ^ | Unknown | Ian Paisly

[Quix]

Even if the KJV

were perfect--which it's certainly not--

The evolution of the English language since then would INJECT GREAT FLAWS IN UNDERSTANDING precisely what God originally wrote

in any modern person--particularly youth inexperienced with anything remotely close to such English.

The same would be true for those for whom English is a 2nd language.

Folks who glibly want youth and ESL people to learn YET ANOTHER FOREIGN LANGUAGE--THAT OF KING JAMES

come across as great hinderers to the advancement of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I suspect when God isn't crying about it, He's laughing robustly at the idiocy of it.

[Quix]

NOT ONLY SO . . .

SHORT OF READING TONS AND TONS OF EXTRA KING JAMES ENGLISH ABOUT DAILY LIFE THEN

It is ****IMPOSSIBLE**** for modern readers of King James English to accurately and precisely

UNDERSTAND WELL THE KING JAMES ENGLISH--ESPECIALLY at the level of the petty details these folks are so addicted to debating about.

[scripter]

I haven't read The King James Version Defended either. As you said, too many other things going on. Nor do I think the KJV needs defending. If folks want to read the KJV then that's what they should read, and that's what James White says in his book The King James Only Controversy, which I highly recommend.

White breaks the KJV-only crowd into 5 groups:

1. I like the KJV Best
2. The Textual Argument
3. Received Text Only
4. The Inspired KJV Group
5. The KJV as New Revelation

Without knowing more of where you're coming from I don't know what group you fall into, and without taking the time to explain how White further defines each group, you probably can't say yourself.

In the introduction, White says:

The KJV Only controversy feeds upon the ignorance among Christians regarding the origin, transmission, and translation of the Bible. Those who have taken the time to study this area are not likely candidates for introduction into the KJV Only camp.

I would have to agree.

Again, I recommend White's book. The description of White and his book that you see from others is far removed from the truth. I don't know what you think of the following folks. I don't always agree with everything they say, but this is what they say about White's book, The King James Only Controversy

"This book is the best book in print on a topic too often riddled with emotion and ignorance." Norman Geisler

"James White has given us a valuable resource that is understandable and dependable. Best of all, the book is spiritually edifying. That is especially refreshing, because much written on this subject is anything but edifying." John MacArthur

"Sober, scholarly, courteous, and convincing." J.I. Packer

"The King James Only Controversy is scholarly and accurate, and its evaluation of opposing viewpoints fair. Anyone troubled by criticisms of English translations will find White trustworthy. I hope this book will be widely circulated. It will do much good." Bruce Metzger

"This book should be read by all who are embroiled in the controversy" D.A. Carson

"A clear, compelling, and conclusive case contradicting the claims of the KJV-only advocates. Your confidence in God's preservation of Scripture through credible translations such as the NIV and the NASB will be solidifed." Hendrick Hanegraaff

[Quix]

ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT.

THANKS.

[Revelation 911]

quix - your frightening me LOL - I agree - but try not to get too lathered up about it.

Though your passion is showing

I'd be curious to see just how many new Christians were inspired initially by the KJV or NIV. I still use a Catholic Bible (the apocrypha is good entertainment- snicker)My wife uses the NIV and some old farts in our church (45 yrs old) (heheheh) use KJV - we get a good cross section of the intent during Bible study. BTW I am a "Free" Methodist (former Cath).

[Alex Murphy]

The guys that are making a huge killing on producing newbible after newbible, after newbible; each guaranteed to be better that the preceding, ad infinitum.

Is there something wrong with a laborer being worthy of his hire? Is there a problem with a Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic translator being paid for (i.e. seeking work for) his specialized skills?

[Quix]

Me passionate?

Surely you jest!

Guilty as charged.

I'm somehow still surprised on occasion when I think I'm just in idling mode; very calm, at peace but somehow still stating things in a way that others find vividly passionate.

Probably didn't help that in teaching ESL in China and Taiwan for 15 years USUALLY required VIVID, DRAMATIC etc. language and illustrations to do the best job of it.

Anyway--

Sorry to frighten! Not the goal!

--execpt perhaps to frighten people away from RELIGION and into REALATIONSHIP with Almighty God.

I'm a 56 year old fart. Reared in the A of G and have attended for extended times Episcopal, Baptist and a fair number of Community churches and generic charismatic churches.

Was reared on the KJV and used it in high school and college even as a teddy bear I slept with on more than a few occasions.

But my God is Bigger than the KJV.

You might check out THE MESSAGE. He seems to have succeeded as far as I can tell in making the language of The Bible more faithful to the tone, spirit etc. of the original language. Certainly the God I read in The Message is truer to the God I know in my RELATIONSHIP than that presented in either the KJV or the NIV or any other version including the LIVING.

God is Holy but He's not prissy. The original languages clearly reflect that as I understand it. THE MESSAGE DOES, TOO.

Thanks for your kind msg.

[drstevej]

The guys that are making a huge killing on producing newbible after newbible, after newbible; each guaranteed to be better that the preceding, ad infinitum.

Here's a term for the day for you: free market economics

People willingly buy these Bibles. So what's yer beef?

[scripter]

some old farts in our church (45 yrs old)

Hey! I'm almost an old fart by your definition and haven't brought a King James Bible to a Bible study in over 20 years. If I know someone will be bringing an NIV I'll use the NASB, or perhaps the NET, and if it will help make the point, read something from The Message.

[Revelation 911]

so Im the youngin at 40 eh ?

[ksen]

I think I have the James White book on my list to pick up and buy. If I don't I'll put it there.

Just looking at the list I think I'd fall in either the "Textual Argument" or "Received Text Only" group. Although I do like the KJV best. I've tried reading other versions and they either make my skin crawl or I have a hard time concentrating while I read them because I keep thinking, "This doesn't sound right..."

Anyway, I thanketh thee for the book suggestion.

[Quix]

Do you REALLY expect

REASON AND SANITY

to have a part in this discussion? LOL!

Great point. Thanks.

[Quix]

GOODNESS!

MORE SANITY!

SO SHOCKING!

Keep this up and you might end up

BRINGING IN A LOT MORE SHEAVES

FOR THE KINGDOM.

Oh, sheaves . . . uhhhh . . .

fruit, folks, souls, people, sons and daughters of God. . .

So nice to see sanity strike so frequently in one thread on such a topic! WOW!

[Quix]

The

ABSOLUTELY CRAZY THING

IS

that I persist in thinking of myself as I did in my BA university. I don't know why unless that was the first somewhat extended often enough wonderful period of my life.

Ah well, soon, we shall be ageless for sure! PRAISE GOD!

[Quix]

Anyway, I thanketh thee for the book suggestion.

Are you trying to risk hell and damnation?

Shouldn't it be:

I thanketh thee for THINE book suggestion.

???? [ / silly sarcasm ]

[ksen]

Whoops!

Thou wast correct in thine observation!

[Quix]

Ohest,

I don'test knowest

that myselfest wouldest rantest onest

quitest so grandestly

as thatest.

---

But I felt like being a silly rabbit anyway.

Thanks for your kind response!

[The Grammarian]

On the other hand, I'm not quite 22 and I still use the KJV (primarily because I don't have a full NASB copy of the Thompson Chain Reference Study Bible). I was also originally 'inspired' on the KJV at the house church I went to, although there were multiple people that used the NIV there, too. ;)

[Quix]

I like the Thompson chain ref versions too. The NIV one is fine.

Although I wore out 2 DIXON KJV's.

[fortheDeclaration]

No, that is good sense, since you are wasting a lot of time reading the wrong readings when you could be reading the Bible instead! Not trying to pick an argument, just an observation: It seems to me that we owe a lot of our English language to two sources: Chaucer, and the King James Bible.

Amen!

Not to mention Shakespeare, Milton and Bunyan

I use the KJV a lot as that is what I grew up with, and I like the flow of the language. But, I also consult other translations when I want to delve into meanings, shades of meaning, and even into the Greek and Hebrew (with aids to help me understand), in order to be absolutely sure in places where the KJV language usage is not clear. I think the KJV is a perfectly good translation, but there are others that also stand up well, some better than others.

I could see one looking at another translation if that translation read the same way as the King James and you wanted a 'clearer' understanding.

I do not agree with that approach, since I believe the best way is to compare scripture with scripture and consult a good dictionary.

However, I would see no harm in doing that if the readings were the same.

The problem comes in that they often are not the same readings, with the 'new' versions omitting something based on a different Hebrew and Greek text.

Thus, it comes back to what is the final authority, the Book or our opinions.

The only thing I would say to the KJV-only crowd is that, while I understand your zeal for the KJV, too often other translations are characterized as "deliberate distortions", with no real proof. Your attitude is similar to the conspiracy theorists who are sure that some vast conspiracy is behind everything, running everything, and that only a chosen few are privileged to see the "real truth". Anyone who disagrees is either blind, or a part of the conspiracy. And with you anyone who disagrees is either blind, or an agent of Satan attempting to water down the Word. There is no room in the KJV-only world for a scholarly difference of opinion over precise translation. I think that is sad, and it gives the KJV-only crowd a certain "bug-eyed, sweaty, ranting quality" that turns most people off. Rather than engage in scholarly debate and really work on translation, they attempt to put everyone else on the defensive, all in the name of defending the truth. A noble cause, but very poor execution.

Well, you started your post very well, but went off track.

I have shown in recent posts the fact the NIV and NASB makes Christ a sinner in Matt.5:22cf Mk.3:5, the NASB makes Christ a liar with Jn. 7:8 omitting 'yet', something the NIV does not do.

Both versions have an error in 2Sam.21:19 cf 1Chro.20:5.

The NASB has the JW' reading in Jn.1:18.

Both editions omit the 'blood' from Col.1:14, thus giving ammo to those who would support a bloodless redemption (ala Cain vs Abel Gen.4)

The fact is that there is a conspiracy to change our Bibles, both the words and the Canon.

That 'conspiracy' has been ungoing beginning in the 2nd century with gnostics attempting to influence manuscripts with corrupt readings.

Peter Jones points out in Spirit Wars the effort to change the Canon from the 66 current books, so one can have the 'freedom' to 'choose' what Canon he 'prefers'.

So, when rigid defenders of the 66 books attempt to defend the current Canon, on what basis will you defend it?

You will defend it on the faith that God has given us the right books and we know that to be true by their fruit.

Yet, we can know we have the right books but not the words of those Books!

So, as the 'new' Canons come out and the conservatives rush to fight against them (as they did with the 'gender neutral' bibles) they will be brushed aside as Lot was, having nothing to fight with since they themselves demanded their 'right' to use any word they wanted.

Once you give up Biblical preservation you have given up the Bible as the conservatives are slowly learning, and some are returning to the King James Bible as a result. (Jer.6:16)